“A property is distinctive of a person; relation, indeed, is a relation of person to person; a notion is which a person is known under the related property. Likewise, this is a difference according to the name: a personal property is distinctive of the person by which a person is a person.”

Is this a good translation? My main concern has to do with: "notio est quae cognoscitur persona sub proprietate relata." I translate it as: "a notion is that which a person is known under the related property"

My translation: “To that which is objected, whether the relation of the creature to the Creator is a creature, it should be said that the relation is not other according to the essence than the creature itself. For it depends on the Creator, and not by means of some accidental property; for so it would be necessary to go on into infinity . . . .”

My concern is with "Ipsa enim se ipsa dependet a Creatore." Why is the 'se ipsa' in there? "dependet" I believe is intransitive so what is an accusitive "se ipsa" doing in the sentence. It makes perfect sense without it: "For it depends on the Creator."

My concern is with "Ipsa enim se ipsa dependet a Creatore." Why is the 'se ipsa' in there? "dependet" I believe is intransitive so what is an accusitive "se ipsa" doing in the sentence. It makes perfect sense without it: "For it depends on the Creator."

Any thoughts?

It's ablative not accusative (it would have been se ipsam, if accusative), like it is ablative the following "aliqua proprietate accidentali," ,which you translated correctly.

That makes far more sense. Interestingly, I use the Notre Dame program "words" (http://archives.nd.edu/words.html) to sometimes double-check what forms a word could be, and it fails to list ablative on its list for Ipsa. So I was thinking se ipsa was an acc. pl. but that didn't make any sense.

Of course "For it depends by itself on the Creator" makes perfect sense now! Thanks for your help!